The petitioner challenged a 2005 disciplinary penalty order by filing a writ petition in 2020. The Court, noting a 14-15 year delay, found the petitioner failed to cogently explain the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for being barred by laches.
Nothing; the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Date of decision: February 20, 2024
(18) S. S. VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shaharyar Ali and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Nitin Chandra and Mr. A. Awhan Mohapatra, Advs. with AC/F P A. Sheejo, SI/T Prahald Devendra, SI/E Amit Kumar, CT/Gd. Palve Nitesh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2006 in order No. V- 11014/APS/12/LC/05/2466 whereby the respondent through its Inspector General has wrongly upheld the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Signing Date:26.02.2024 12:30:42
Page 1
order of appellate authority which confirmed the penalty imposed by disciplinary authority on the petitioner in respect of charge framed vide charge memorandum dated 02.07.2004 which has been wrongly proved by the enquiry officer.
(ii) Any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:26.02.2024 12:30:42
W.P.(C) 1979/2020
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Signing Date:26.02.2024 12:30:42
Page 3
the Country and as such could not pursue the matter is also not appealing as the petitioner was within his right to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction at a place / nearer to the place where he was posted.
CM APPL. 6922/2020
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2024 /jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Signing Date:26.02.2024 12:30:42
Page 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition concerning a 2005 penalty order, filed in 2020, can be condoned despite a lapse of 14-15 years.
Whether the petitioner's explanation for delay is cognate, convincing, and persuasive enough to satisfy the requirement of condonation of delay.
S. S. VERMA
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL)
V. KAMESWAR RAO
SAURABH BANERJEE
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
